Well, I guess the Wachowskis must not do a whole lot of reading.
I remember when the weird trailer for their movie came out; instead of being about the movie it’s about the three of them–the Wachowskis and Tom Twyker–sitting there talking about how this is the BEST BOOK EVER and THERE’S NEVER EVER BEEN ANOTHER BOOK LIKE IT and so they had to turn it into this life-changing piece of art.
I guess they’ve never heard of these things called “short-story anthologies”, nor had they ever read Italo Calvino’s When On Winter’s Night A Traveler. Because I just finished reading Cloud Atlas and that’s what book it is. Don’t get me wrong; it’s a very good book indeed. Is it the Best Book Ever? No. It is a mostly well-done collection of short stories grouped around a theme. The first short story is a mid-nineteenth century seafaring journal centering around slavery. The second is 1930s Europe. It goes on like that, with the characters in each story being reincarnations of the same person, making the same mistakes in a whole new era. Oh what fun! The gimmicky part, also found in the Calvino book, is that each short story leaves off abruptly (except for the central story set in a post-apocalyptic future.) You’re reading along and then BAM! the story just stops and now you have to care about a detective story set in the 1970s, or a blade-runner/THX-1138 rip-off set in the future. After the central story where we see that yes, indeed, the same people DO make the same mistakes, right up to the end of the world as we know it…and beyond, we get to finish the back half of all the short stories. It’s like going up a ladder and back down again.
That’s really a good way to structure the book for maximum impact of the huge reveals of things like what happens to each version of the person with the comet birthmark. It’s a really annoying way to structure the book for the reader, but I suppose it does make the point, starkly, that the ending of any story is wholly dependent upon where the teller stops telling it. What seem like happy endings after the first short story turn sad after the second, and vice versa.
It IS a very good book, but all due respect to the filmmakers it’s not the BEST BOOK EVER nor did it CHANGE MY LIFE to read it. At least now that I have read it I can see their movie. Time Magazine claimed the film was the worst of 2012. I can only assume that Time Magazine didn’t see a lot of movies in 2012.
Just Another Pretty Farce 
I hadn’t seen that Time had named it the worst film of 2012. I very much enjoyed it. Though, if it had been billed as such, it was not the BEST film ever no did it CHANGE MY LIFE. But I quite enjoyed it nonetheless (and I tend to be difficult to please with movies).
I’ve been wanting to see it, but I just didn’t think I wanted to see it without having read the book first. Not out of any “I must READ” snobbery but simply because in the interviews I saw the Wachowskis and other people associated with the film all talked about what a complex story it was, how intricate the book was, etc. I felt like I might do it an injustice if I saw it first. Now that I’ve read the book I think perhaps I’d have been better served to have seen the movie first simply because I understand the movie doesn’t break up the stories in the same way as the book. (In other words, each vignette is told completely before the next one commences.) I had been warned about that with the book, but it was still not pleasant. Especially since each story is written as a complete change of genre. You stop ABRUPTLY and have to move into the next genre. It’s a bit unsettling if you’re in an immersive-read mood.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you were told wrong about the movie. The movie darts back and forth between timelines with reckless abandon. I think it may be slightly less jarring in a visual media than in a written media though, on the basis that in a written media you have a visual going on in your head and it takes a few moments to adjust it when the words change, but in a visual media, you just see it outright. If that makes sense.
From what I’ve read on it, there are some pretty distinct difference in the structuring of each time and how it relates to the others, but the movie definitely jumps around between them
It can’t be worse than Skyfall. when you have Bond fans who are cheerfully accept the existence of exploding spy pens complaining about how the film insults their intelligence, it’s not good.
It’s probably not the best idea to get me started on _Skyfall_ because it’s one of those rare things that my husband and I disagree on. Strongly. He is one who loves it, says it’s a great film.
I maintain that while it LOOKED good–Roger Deakins had the misfortune to be up against Life Of Pi–it just wasn’t a good story. At all. More than that, it was not a James Bond Movie. It was an action movie with a character named “James Bond”. There are just certain things you expect from a Bond film. Gadgets, charm, hero saving the day.
Except for a couple MILD “charming” scenes there wasn’t any of the totemic Bond story.
I’m all about done with these reboots that kill the best parts of a franchise in order to “modernise” it. I like my heroes heroic.
So, anyway, that’s me and Skyfall.
I completely agree with you. I really liked Casino Royale, and was hoping Skyfall would be more of the same, but yeah, they made a conscious effort to kill Bond off as a character. They deconstructed almost everything about him, to the point where it’s going to be hard to make a new movie in the same timeline. If it is the same-having the Aston Marin makes that all in doubt.
I’m waiting for my co-worker who is a big Bond fan to see it. I wonder what his reaction will be.
Skyfall frankly wasn’t even a good action flick, in my opinion, let alone a good Bond film. I was so disappointed because all I heard was how fantastic it was, and I did enjoy the rougher “bad ass” bond of Casino Royale, but ultimately I just didn’t dig it, though I liked it better as an action film towards the end when they did the whole “Home Alone” meets “James Bond” thing at his old estate.
THAT?!?! Ugh. The whole time I was thinking “Home Alone” and how it was beneath the dignity of Bond. If something is beneath the dignity of a franchise where the hero skips across alligators in a pond, it’s baaaad.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
I guess “lots of things exploding” = “good action film” to me 😉